On 7/12/2014 3:50 PM, Brian wrote:
On Fri 11 Jul 2014 at 19:52:38 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/11/2014 5:06 PM, Brian wrote:
On Fri 11 Jul 2014 at 16:33:52 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/11/2014 3:25 PM, Brian wrote:
You are going to hate me for this: there is no "." after Mr; it is a
contraction. (Off-topic is that way ----------->).
No, it's an abbreviation, not a contraction. As a contraction it would
be M'r.
Contractions *are* abbreviations. The reverse doesn't apply.
No, there is a difference between a contraction and an abbreviation.
"Can't" is a contraction. "Mr." is an abbreviation.
I see. "Can't" is not a shortened form (an abbreviation) of cannot.
True. It is a contraction.
Please say "e.g. Mr Smith".
Louder, please. We cannot hear you.
That's better.
Now the difference between an abbreviation which is a contraction and
one which is not is clearer.
Does the following make sense?
Dr Moriarty, Prof. Andrews and Miss Gladstone all taught at the
University of St Andrews and worked at the BBC?
Nope. It should be "Dr. Moriarty" and "St. Andrews". Both are
abbreviations. If they were contractions, they should have an
apostrophe (') in them.
You will have inform Dr Moriarty and the University of St Andrews:
http://www.boltonft.nhs.uk/consultants/dr-kieran-moriarty/
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/
What are our univerities and the NHS (N.H.S.?) coming to?
Yes, the English universities have always been good at clobbering the
language :) I don't know about that side of the pond, but it's been
"Mr." over here since the 1700's or before, as indicated by some old texts.
Contractions have apostrophes which replace the missing characters.
Abbreviations are terminated with a '.'. If the word(s) is (are)
shortened, you need one or the other.
But then that is standard English, not British :)
I had forgotten about the use of the full stop in the USA.
Yes, we strive to keep the English language pure, despite the efforts of
those no good Brits :)